Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU - C-369/17, Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Subsequent application

CJEU rules that Hungarian national law which defines ‘serious crime’ (in the context of exclusion from subsidiary protection) as a crime with a possible custodial of 5 years sentence as incompatible with the Qualification Directive. Instead, each crime must be looked at on an individual basis to ascertain its “seriousness”.  

Date of decision: 13-09-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1F,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (12),Recital (23),Recital (24),Recital (33),Recital (39),Article 2,Article 14,Article 17,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
Spain - Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court, 9 July 2018, No. 1.168/2018
Keywords: Procedural guarantees, Dublin Transfer

The Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court established that Spain is bound by two Council Decisions of May and September 2015 establishing an EU Emergency Relocation Mechanism aimed at distributing a number of refugees that have arrived to Italy and Greece.

Date of decision: 09-07-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 78
Greece - Council of State, Fourth Section, Decision 805/2018, 17 April 2018
Keywords: Freedom of movement (right to)

The Court annulled the no. 10464/31.05.2017 Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, on the basis of which, the restriction on the movement of applicants for international protection entering the Greek islands of Lesvos, Rhodes, Samos, Kos, Leros and Chios after the 20th of March 2016, was imposed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the competent authority may not impose the contentious restriction on movement to applicants for international protection arriving in the Greek islands after the date of the publication of the judgment.

 

Date of decision: 17-04-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 31,Art 26,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 18,Article 51,Article 52,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Application Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 3 October 2017
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Return

NB: the case was referred to the Grand Chamber, which issued a new ruling on 13 February 2020. For the EDAL summary of the final judgment, see here.

The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR. 

In light of Spain's jurisdiction over N.D. and N.T, who had attempted to cross the fences separating Morocco from Melilla, Spain was bound by the prohibition of collective expulsions under the Convention. A standardised response of removal to the applicants attempted entry to the Spanish territory without any identification procedure or administrative or judicial measure being first taken meant that the Spanish authorities had violated Article 4 Protocol 4 to the Convention. 
 
The collective expulsion of the applicants was clearly linked to their inability to access a national procedure which would satisfy Article 13 requirements.The applicants had, therefore, also been denied an effective and rigorous remedy which would allow them to contest the collective expulsion. 
Date of decision: 03-10-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 1,Article 2,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 13,Article 41,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 2,Article 6,Article 78
CJEU - C 18/16, K., 14 September 2017
Keywords: Detention, Refugee Status, Reception conditions

The case concerns the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Date of decision: 14-09-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 52,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 2,Article 9,Article 13,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 4,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Recital (2),Recital (12),Recital (15),Recital (17),Recital (20),Recital (35),Article 8,Article 9,Article 13,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
CJEU - C-638/16 X and X, 7 March 2017
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Visa

The Syrian family's application for a Humanitarian Visa at the Belgian embassy in Lebanon fell outside the scope of the Visa Code, even if formally submitted on the basis of its Article 25(1)(a), because the purpose of the application (that is, to apply for asylum upon arrival to Belgium) differs from that of a short-term visa. 

Date of decision: 07-03-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 33,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 1,Article 3,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 78
CJEU - C-578/16 PPU, C.K. and others
Country of applicant: Egypt, Syria
Keywords: Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Dublin Transfer, Accommodation centre, Health (right to), Vulnerable person

Even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible, a Dublin transfer can only be carried out in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR EU.

If there is a real and proven risk that the state of health of an applicant who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness would significantly and permanently deteriorate, that transfer would constitute a violation of Article 4 CFR EU.

It is for the courts and authorities of the requesting Member State to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the health of the person concerned by taking all necessary precaution. If the taking of precautions is not sufficient, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to suspend the execution of the transfer for as long as the applicant’s conditions render him unfit for transfer.

Member States may choose to conduct its own examination of that person’s application by making use of the “discretionary clause” laid down in Article 17(1) DRIII, but is not required to do so.

Date of decision: 16-02-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33,Article 1,Article 4,Article 19,Article 51,Article 52,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3,Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (32),Recital (34),Article 3,Article 12,Article 17,Article 27,Article 29,Article 31,Article 32,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b),Article 78
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 10 February 2017, n 182.109
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection

After having committed several offences qualified as being of a ‘particular gravity’, Mr.O’s refugee status was revoked on April 21st 2006.

Upon appeal to the Council of Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’), the question of the validity of article 55/3/1 of December 15th 1980 law (the ‘1980 Law’) arose. Although it is established that this provision is transposing article 14(4) of the Directive 2011/95/EU, its compatibility with the Geneva Convention must be verified.

The Council refuses then to pronounce itself on the question, arguing the competency of such matter is vested in the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Date of decision: 10-02-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 2,Art 12,Art 17,Recital 4,Recital 21,Art 14,Art 1,Art 1A,Art 32,Art 1F,Art 33,Recital 16,Recital 12,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Recital 14,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
Germany – Administrative Court Berlin, 11 September 2016, 33 K 152.15 A
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: First country of asylum, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status, Inadmissible application

A renewed application for asylum in a second country is admissible if the nature of international protection applied for differs from the protection already granted. Deportation to the country of the first application or the country of origin is not to be taken into account in this situation.

Date of decision: 11-09-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 17,Art 15,Art 13,Art 14,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 10,Article 33,Article 40,Article 46,Article 51,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 16,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 18,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 3,Article 12,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
Slovenia - Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 29 July 2016, Judgment I U 1102/2016
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Standard of proof, Dublin Transfer

The Slovenian legislature has not fulfilled its obligations under the provisions of Article 2(n) of the Dublin Regulation. The possibility of an analogous application of Article 68 of the Aliens Act-2 has a very weak basis in terms of the objective criteria required. It can only be sufficient in a particular case if in light of the specific circumstances of the case there is no doubt about the existence of the risk of absconding.

Date of decision: 29-07-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 31,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 53,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (27),Recital (54),Article 9,Article 26,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (9),Article 3,Article 15,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 2,Article 28,Article 49,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Recital (15),Recital (16),Recital (17),Recital (18),Recital (19),Recital (20),Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,EN - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 - Art 288,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78